And it's mostly pointless to engage someone of that mindset. Like I find myself saying from time to time, you can rarely move a person by reason who has not arrived at their position by the same faculty. Racists, misogynists, most extremists aren't what they are because they gave the matter a great deal of rational consideration.
TH:
If you'll examine what I actually wrote, you'll find that she and the rest of the liberals are oversimplifying what I said.
At no point did I say that it is, categorically speaking, acceptable to beat one's wife to death.
What I said was that it is not unfitting for the State to permit a husband to beat one's wife to death
if she is an adulteress and has the audacity to move her lover into their home. [In point of fact, since this is not legal, I do not think that any husband in Europe or the United States, etc., should actually do this, even in that situation.]
I further provided extensive arguments for this against Kmo, Elo., et al.
You are, of course, perfectly free to think that I'm wrong; but I take offense to the insinuation that my views on this are anything but rationally grounded. They might be grounded on an erring reason, but reason nonetheless.
If you wish to address them, especially my latest to Kmo, I invite you to do so.
I wish, however, to point that I have said nothing which would not have been considered, if not commonplace, at least analogous to commonplace sentiments of the ancient Romans (in which the paterfamilias (father of the family or head of house hold) held power of life and death over his wife and children) and the Greeks (who, if he caught his wife in adultery, was perfectly in the right to sacrifice her at the family altar to the ancestral gods).
